3 ms·

Calling inconsistent beliefs a sign that they justify whatever they want is overly harsh. Rather, it has been shown [1] that people come to their beliefs by int

Calling inconsistent beliefs a sign that they justify whatever they want is overly harsh. Rather, it has been shown [1] that people come to their beliefs by intuition, and rationalize them post-hoc. Just because a belief is intuitive and not constructed from moral axioms (meaning their beliefs appear inconsistent by their stated rationalization) does not mean it is arbitrary ("whatever they want"). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind

ouid 4y ago
This does not contradict anything that I said. It's not harsh to refer to the argument as being worthless in this case. It might as well not exist. One can be well served by a belief system that justifies nothing, or a belief system that is full of contradictions, but listening to them rationalize it isn't going to help me understand any better than it helped them (which was not at all).
- car_analogy 4y ago
  It doesn't contradict most of what you said, except this part: > their entire moral philosophy [..] is exclusively used to justify whatever they want Unless by "want" you mean "selfishly desire or selflessly believe is the morally right thing", and not the common use of only "selfish desire".
  - ouid 4y ago
    By want I mean want. I wasn't assigning moral judgments at this point because that would have been circular. I said "whatever they want" in order to distinguish it from an unqualified "whatever". The prosperity doctrine stuff was a motivated example, but not meant to be representative.
    - car_analogy 4y ago
      "Want" is highly ambiguous. For example, a lawyer that believes everyone has a right to a competent legal defense may find a client personally abhorrent, but take their case anyway out of a sense of duty. It is highly misleading to describe this as the lawyer "doing whatever they want", even if that is technically true by some definition of "want", and even if the lawyer's rationalization of this is found to be internally inconsistent, or inconsistent with some other aspect of their behavior.
      - ouid 4y ago
        I am aware that it is highly ambiguous, that is why I chose it. People who believe whatever they want are more of a problem than people who believe whatever. People who believe whatever they want can be manipulated by people who know what they want.

ouid 4y ago

This does not contradict anything that I said. It's not harsh to refer to the argument as being worthless in this case. It might as well not exist. One can be well served by a belief system that justifies nothing, or a belief system that is full of contradictions, but listening to them rationalize it isn't going to help me understand any better than it helped them (which was not at all).

car_analogy 4y ago
It doesn't contradict most of what you said, except this part: > their entire moral philosophy [..] is exclusively used to justify whatever they want Unless by "want" you mean "selfishly desire or selflessly believe is the morally right thing", and not the common use of only "selfish desire".
- ouid 4y ago
  By want I mean want. I wasn't assigning moral judgments at this point because that would have been circular. I said "whatever they want" in order to distinguish it from an unqualified "whatever". The prosperity doctrine stuff was a motivated example, but not meant to be representative.
  - car_analogy 4y ago
    "Want" is highly ambiguous. For example, a lawyer that believes everyone has a right to a competent legal defense may find a client personally abhorrent, but take their case anyway out of a sense of duty. It is highly misleading to describe this as the lawyer "doing whatever they want", even if that is technically true by some definition of "want", and even if the lawyer's rationalization of this is found to be internally inconsistent, or inconsistent with some other aspect of their behavior.
    - ouid 4y ago
      I am aware that it is highly ambiguous, that is why I chose it. People who believe whatever they want are more of a problem than people who believe whatever. People who believe whatever they want can be manipulated by people who know what they want.